David and I don't always agree, but stranger things have happened <G>. Personally, I think that we, as an organization, see far too much suspicion and second-guessing -- about half the time, I keep waiting for someone to suggest that the EC was secretly on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Or maybe the EC wasn't there, and it was the AB. Sometimes it amazes me that *anyone* would volunteer for any position, what with the almost constant scrutiny and distrust of everyone's motives. The fact that the EC doesn't have the entire world looking over their shoulder to cross-examine every word uttered hardly means that they're operating in a veil of secrecy. In the past few days, any number of questions have been asked about what is done and how, and as near as I can tell, every question has been answered. Perhaps I've always misunderstand the reasoning behind having a committee. I always thought it was because in many cases, small groups with specific goals are much more efficient than large groups nattering aimlessly about the countryside. The EC has one function -- to organize and run the elections. I'm not sure what "agenda" they could be setting. And as near as I can tell, they've done an admirable job. And I'm rather curious about one statement: "I cannot support the EC Procedures, as long as they select their own members." The EC may be proposing members, but the AB has the final say, voting yes or no on the makeup of the committee. So the AB, made up of our elected representatives, is selecting the members. And, of course, there's one other question. What, pray tell, would be the alternative? I know, perhaps we could hold an election for the EC! Oh, but wait. We would have to have an EC to take care of the logistics for the election. Do we have an election for that? Hmm, I can see a never-ending procession there, so maybe not. Gosh, then I guess someone will have to appoint an EC to hold elections for the EC. But who gets to appoint them? Sound ludicrous enough to anyone yet? Angie > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jan Cortez wrote: > > > No further discussion, other than I cannot support the EC Procedures, as > > long as they select their own members. As in any election commission, it > > is not good policy. Leaves the door wide open for those on the EC to set > > their own agenda, and since it is all behind closed doors, on a closed list, > > allows the imagination to run wild. > > > > And to my way of thinking, would be no different than the AB selecting its > > own members.